94
SOCIO-POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN CONTEMPORARY YORÙBÁ WRITTEN
POETRY: A SOCIO-SEMIOTIC APPRAISAL OF ÀJÀNÀKÚ’S ORIN EWÚRO AND
OLÚNLÁDÉ’S EWÌ ÌGBÀLÓDÉ
Hezekiah Olúfé̩ mi, ADÉÒ̩ ṢÚN
Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin,
P.M.B. 1515, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria.
Phone: +2348033455897.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Nigeria’s political and social experience has been the main issue that have attracted the attention of the Yorùbá
poetry writers in the recent time. This study examined how two poets used their texts to accentuate their views on
different political and social events in the country. The poems for the analysis were randomly selected from
Àjànàkú’s Orin Ewúro (1998) and Olúnládé’s Ewì Ìgbàlódé
(2002) and discussed within the theoretical
framework of socio-semiotics. This entailed employing context of situation (that is, field, tenor and mode of
discourse) and context of culture. Among the findings in the work were that the poets’ field of discourse centred
on the insensitivity of the political leaders to the problem of the poor, horrible experience of Nigerians during the
military regime, bribery and corruption among law enforcement agents and the generality of the people. The tenor
of discourse portrayed hatred and unfriendliness between the political leaders and the masses. The mode of
discourse was characterized by highly rhetorical confrontational, incantatory expressions laced with satirical
metaphorical devices and parallelism. The context of culture exhibited the use of folktale song and cultural
symbols. The study concluded that the deployment of both the contexts of situation and of culture to analyse the
poems paved way for an intensive study of Yorùbá written poetry, thereby making their meaning embellishments
more readily accessible.
1. Introduction
There are few critical works on Yorùbá written poetry which address political and social
discourse. Among these are Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩ (1989), Adéye̩ mi (2001), Adéjùmò̩ (2005) and Olújìnmí
(2005). Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩ (1989, pp. 194-209) examines semiotic features in Ọ̩lábímtán’s poems. He
employs a part of Peirce’s classification of signs, i.e. icon, index and symbol, and submits that
out of these three signs, it is only the symbol that he believes is prominent in Yorùbá literature.
Thus, he uses symbol as a semiotic tool in analyzing Ọ̩lábímtán’s poems in Àádó̩ ta Àròfò̩ ,
especially in “Òtító̩ pè̩ lú Èké”, “Ẹní dale̩ ”, “Ìjà Ìlara” and “Ìjà Òs̩ ùpá pè̩ lú Oòrùn”. Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩
(1989) opines that O̩ lábímtán wrote these poems on the political intrigue between the leader of
the party in control of the old Western Nigeria Government and his deputy between 1960 and
1966. These poems are couched in imagery and symbols. For example, in “Òtító̩ pè̩ lú Èké” he
refers to the leader of the party as ‘Òtító̩ ’ (The truth), while his deputy is ‘Èké’ (Falsehood).
Similarly, in “Ijà Òs̩ ùpá pè̩ lú Oòrùn”, the poet employs the symbols ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ to
represent both the leader and his deputy. As remarked by Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩ (1998, p. 97), the whole
account is a scene of an eclipse which in Yorùbá mythology is a fight between two heavenly
bodies – the sun and the moon. However, in the real sense, the strife between the two leaders
under reference and which the eclipse symbolizes, sets in motion a chain of events that
culminated in the first military coup in Nigeria on January 13, 1966. The ‘triumph’ of the sun
over the moon in the poem, as reasoned by Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩ (1998, p. 98), is perhaps the death of the
deputy leader of the party, Chief S.L. Akíntó̩lá in the military coup of January 13, 1966; and
the subsequent release of the leader of the party, Chief Ọbáfé̩ mi Awóló̩ wò̩ from prison in
August, 1966. Fó̩ ló̩ runs̩ ó̩ ’s (1989) adoption of semiotics as one of the tools for the study makes
the work important to our present study which analyzes selected poems from a socio-semiotic
perspective.
Another important work worthy of review is that of Adéye̩ mí (2001), which
investigates political commitment and poetic utterances in Jíbó̩ lá Abíó̩ dún’s Àlọ n lọ…Ewì.
Adéye̩ mí observes that the text contains forty-three poems out of which fifteen are devoted to
Nigerian politics under the Military. The fifteen political poems in the collection are the focus
of his critical analysis. Adéye̩ mí (2001, p. 82) emphasizes that the poet is opposed to the
culture of silence which pervades the society. People keep mute and remain silent under the
tyrannical rule of the Military. Thus, the poet negates the option of muteness and proposes a
revolutionary reaction. He charges the masses to react and not mind the consequences. The
poet, according to Adéye̩ mí (2001, p. 83), maintains that if the masses are afraid because of
guns, the end result is disastrous. He thus describes Jíbó̩ lá Abíó̩ dún as a committed poet in the
96
progressive and revolutionary camp. However, Adéye̩ mí (2001, pp. 90-91) identifies some
weaknesses in the collection, among which is the title, Àlọ n lọ…Ewì. He comments that the
title is odd considering that it is an uncompleted Yoruba proverb. He, therefore, suggests “Àlọ
n lọ”, which will attract readers, and it is the readers’ responsibility to find out what is in the
book. One agrees with Adéyẹmí (2001, p. 90) on this position. Another observation raised by
Adéye̩ mí that attracts our attention is the poet’s advocacy for metaphysical or magical means to
deal with the Military. Adéye̩ mi condemns this option in its totality; instead, he suggests the
following underlined option:
We are in the age of scientific empiricism, an age of
age of computer, an age of
rational
approach
to
critical consciousness, an
issues
with
vigorous
prayer…What we think we need is mass mobilization, proper political education
for all and sundry which will
eventually lead to mass opposition against
Military coups in Nigeria instead of invoking magical power
on them (Adéye̩ mí, 2001, p. 91).
It is noteworthy that the option of prayer, as suggested by Adéye̩ mí, must have brought the
masses out of the military rule. God’s intervention must have brought about the mysterious
death of the late military despot, General Sanni Abacha, an incident that facilitated the
enthronement of democracy in Nigeria on May 29, 1999.
Another work that relates to our study is that of Adéjùmò̩ (2005) which appraises Àtàrì
Àjànàkú’s Orin Ewúro. Adéjùmò̩ analyses some of the poems in the text using the sociological
approach. Adéjùmò̩ claims that the poet, in an attempt to comment on issues in Orin Ewúro,
makes use of satire as one of its weapons. She notes that in both the classical and African satire,
invective is one of the weapons satirists employ to wage verbal attack on their target. Hence,
the use of invective is prominent in Àtàrí Àjànàkú’s verbal ‘missiles’ at the ruling class and
people who abuse their leadership position at all levels of the society. In other words, the poet,
according to Adéjùmò̩ (2005, pp. 38-39), advocates for a change of power and also predicts a
reversal of fortune for looters of the people’s wealth. There will be a tragic end of all evil doers
and there will definitely be retributive justice. Adéjùmò̩ stresses that to show the seriousness of
the desire to see a change of power as a satirist, the poet calls on the gods to reject the ruling
class. On the other hand, the poet suggests the probable physical solution out of lack and
poverty to the masses. He directly attacks the idea that robbing the ruling class by the masses,
97
or begging, is the solution to oppression. The way out of poverty and oppression is hard work
(Adéjùmò̩ , 2005, p. 42).
Adéjùmò̩ succeeds in appraising the poems in Orin Ewúro, but fails to give her own judgement
on the work. It would seem that she agrees with everything the poet says. If her work is
compared with Adéye̩ mí’s (2001) work, they are similar, except in the area of theoretical
framework. Adéye̩ mí points out the weaknesses in his data and also suggests some solutions.
Another weakness noticed in Adéjùmò̩ ’s work is its structureless pattern. The whole work runs
in prosaic form from the beginning to the end, without any sub-heading. It should have been
divided into sections to make it logical and scholarly.
Another author whose work is relevant to this study is Olújìnmí, (2005, pp. 101-117) who
examines the works of two female authors (Adébó̩ wálé and Adéjùmò̩ ) and assesses the image
of the woman in their works. He is of the opinion that male writers, who promote the
experiences and interest of men over women alongside the patriarchal school of thought, had
dominated Yorùbá literature, hence the need for women writers to rise up to redeem the image
of the woman created by male writers. Olújìnmí (2005, p. 115) submits that the authors are
able to portray the woman through their personal and creative experiences as a regenerative
symbol of motherhood, procreator and the child-bearer. The woman is also depicted as a
nurturer, comforter and homemaker. Olújìnmí says further that the woman is portrayed as
sustainer, helper, supporter and a faithful wife. She is a defender, protector and guardian of
both her husband and children. The woman also possesses the image of a precious jewel, an
indispensable person and that of a deity, who deserves to be worshipped.
On the contrary, as observed by Olújìnmí (2005), Adébò̩ wálé and Adéjùmò̩ did not conceal the
frailties of their fellow women (p. 101) as women who are wolves in sheepskin among the
flock are also painted. There are women whose portraits suggest them as anti-womanists. They
are the women who are promiscuous, child-abusers, indolent and abortionists (p. 115).
However, this present study takes a departure from the earlier studies by employing a sociosemiotic approach in examining socio-political discourse in Àjànàkú’s Orin Ewúro and
Olúnládé’s Ewì Ìgbàlódé.
98
2. Theoretical Framework
The socio-semiotic approach is the framework adopted for this study. Socio-semiotics is a
branch of the field of semiotics which investigates human signifying practices in specific social
and cultural circumstances, and which tries to explain meaning-making as a social practice. It
expands on Saussure’s founding insights by exploring the implications of the fact that the
“codes” of language and communication are formed by social processes (Wikipedia, 2010).
Social semiotics is thus the study of the social dimensions of meaning, and of the power of
human processes of signification and interpretation (known as semiosis) in shaping individuals
and societies. Social semiotics focuses on social meaning-making practices of all types,
whether visual, verbal or aural in nature (Thibault, 1991). Social semiotics, as noted by Hodge
and Kress (1988), can include the study of how people design and interpret meanings, the study
of texts, and the study of how semiotic systems are shaped by social interests and ideologies,
and how they are adapted as society changes. The main task of social semiotics is to develop
analytical and theoretical frameworks which can explain meaning-making in a social context
(Thibault, 1991). Social semiotics is currently extending this general framework beyond its
linguistic origins to account for the growing importance of sound and visual images, and how
modes of communication are combined in both traditional and digital media (Kress and
Leeuwen, 1996), thus approaching semiotics of culture (Randviir, 2004).
Harris (2006) posits that socio-semiotics is an approach inspired by Halliday’s systemic
functional linguistics, which emphasizes the importance of context, both context of situation
and context of culture, in reconstructing the meaning of a text. The socio-semiotic approach
views language as the embodiment of the social process in a society. This view consequently
shows that context is very important in the understanding and interpretation of a text. All texts
written in language are context dependent. There is no text which can stand alone. Therefore,
to understand a text, the context of the text must be reconstructed.
The most important part of the socio-semiotic approach is the dynamics of the interrelation of
language and social context; which ensures that, in the micro-encounters of everyday life
where meanings are exchanged, language not only facilitates and supports other modes of
social action that constitute its environment, but it also actively creates an environment of its
own, so making possible all the imaginative modes of meaning. Context plays a part in
99
determining what we say; and what we say plays a part in determining the context (Halliday,
1978, p. 3).
The level of context, therefore, is the phenomenon which determines the ‘contextualization’ of
a text. That is, any text will be principally governed by any one of the levels of context, context
of situation, context of text and context of culture. The selection of linguistic structure depends
on the predominating level of context, which in turn is strongly motivated by language medium
(Leckie-Tarry, 1995, p. 3).
2.1
Context of Situation
The context of situation is the immediate environment in which a text is actually functioning.
This notion is used to explain why certain things have been said or written on this particular
occasion, and what else might have been said or written that was not.
The term ‘context of situation’ originated from the anthropologist Malinowsky in his essay
“The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages” (1923/1935 cited by Halliday and Hasan,
1989, p. 5). To Malinowsky, language usage has a context. The ‘textual’ features enable the
discourse to cohere not only with itself but also with its context of situation. He, therefore,
analysed the context of situation into three components, corresponding to the three
metafunctions. These components serve to interpret the social context of a text, the
environment in which meanings are being exchanged. The three components are the field, tenor
and mode of discourse.
These are certain principles that we can use for choosing an appropriate way of describing the
context of a situation of a text. Therefore, in this study, Malinowski’s three components of
interpreting the social context of texts are employed because they are all-encompassing for and
relevant to our analysis.
2.2
Field, Tenor, and Mode of Discourse
Field is the total event in which the text is functioning, referring to inherent features of the
situation and the events taking place with the emphasis on institutional areas of activity and
function. The physical setting and its inherent features and activities, participants, world
100
knowledge and semantic domain constitute both variable and invariable elements of the field of
discourse (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 22)
Arena/activities refers particularly to the locations of the interaction, both in terms of
their inherent features, and in terms of the social institutions which determine them. The arena
and the activities which take place are the most basic elements of context, motivating the
possible range of selections in other elements of field, and in elements of tenor (Leckie-Tarry,
1995, p. 36). “Participants,” according to Leckie-Tarry, refers to inherent features of the
participants, that is, their physical and mental attributes and the knowledge they bring to bear
on the setting and events. Such attributes include characteristics such as race, gender, class,
wealth, age, appearance, intelligence, cognitive and educational level, occupation, etc., and also
the background knowledge which the participants bring to bear on the situation: cultural
knowledge, including intertextual knowledge, linguistic knowledge, situational knowledge and
textual knowledge.
Semantic domain refers to the broad domain, the general subject matter or content of
the specific language event. The two variables of arena and participant will have a considerable
predetermining effect on semantic domain. The arena/activities will tend to narrow the range of
possible events/subject matters, which will be further constrained by the participants.
Tenor refers to the participant in the social event, the characteristics of the participant,
the status as well as the social role which he/she holds (Harris, 2006, p. 3). Halliday and Hasan
(1976, p. 22) define tenor as “the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations,
permanent and temporary among the participants”. The elements of the category of tenor are
related to and motivated by aspects of field. While field refers to the inherent characteristics of
the situation, tenor refers to the non-inherent features – elements which vary according to the
social interactions taking place. Wales (2001, p. 388) posits that tenor involves the
relationships between participants in the situation, their roles and status. This will affect the
kind of language chosen, particularly in respect of the degree of formality. Formality,
according to Leckie-Tarry (1995, p. 39), refers to the degree of formality associated with
activity, particularly from the degree of institutionalization involved. Where settings are highly
institutionalized, a higher degree of formality will tend to prevail. Where the institution
involved is more in the nature of a social practice rather than a formally constituted institution
within the society, levels of formality will tend to be lower. It is apparent that the field has a
primary influence on this tenor variable; however, the interaction of all field variables
constrains the degree of formality. Levels of formality are motivated by the schematized
background knowledge of the participants derived from the context of culture,that is
101
knowledge of cultural mores which establish a relationship between areas of interaction, types
of participants and semantic domains to levels of formality, and situational knowledge as to
role assignment (Leckie-Tarry, 1995, pp. 39-40).
Mode refers to what part the language is
playing, what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that
situation: the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the
context, including the channel (is it spoken or written or some combination of the two?) and
also the rhetorical mode, what is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as
persuasive, expository, didactic, and the like (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 12).
2.3
Context of Culture
The context of culture is a large and complex knowledge system spread among the various
members of a particular culture, and hence consisting of many sets of knowledge, including, in
particular, the institutional and ideological. In any given interaction, that is, a particular context
of situation, the context of culture is accessed by means of the knowledge systems which the
various participants bring to bear on the situation, where the knowledge is triggered by aspects
of the context of situation.
Halliday and Hasan (1989, p. 46) posit that the context of situation, however, is only the
immediate environment. There is also a broader background against which the text has to be
interpreted: its context of culture. Any actual context of situation, the particular configuration
of field, tenor, and mode that has brought a text into being, is not just a random jumble of
features but a totality – a package of things that typically go together in the culture. People do
these things on these occasions and attach these meanings and values to them: this is what a
culture is. All these factors constitute the context of culture, and they determine, collectively,
the way the text is interpreted in its context of situation. It is helpful to build in some indication
of the cultural background, and the assumptions that have to be made if the text is to be
interpreted in the way poets intend.
3
3.1
Analysis of Data and Discussion
Socio-political discourse in Àjànàkú’s Orin Ewúro (The bitter Songs)
Orin Ewúro is written by Àtàrí Àjànàkú. The text contains twenty-six poems and four were
randomly selected for analysis. The four poems selected from Orin Ewúro are “Níbo Là N
102
Rè?” (Where are we heading for?), “Ìjankúkujàn” (folktale song), “Ẹ fahán Pere Mè̩ kúnnù”
(Speak good of poor) and “Àdáàkó Àjọ” (non-refundable contribution).
Field of Discourse
The field of discourse of “Níbo Là N Rè?” (Where are we heading for?) is the confused
state of Nigeria’s socio-political condition. The arena the poet refers to as the location of
interaction is Nigeria. The participants are the political leaders and the masses who constitute
the victims of bad leadership. The poet expresses concern on the pitiable condition which the
crop of Nigerian leadership has turned the country to. The idea is presented in the rhetorical
questions as thus:
Níbo layé dorí kọ?
Níbo là n rè?
Níbo layé dorí kọ?
Ẹ máa gbó̩ o
Níbo là n rè ò?...
Ìyà yìí mà pò̩ o eee
Èyí mà le ooo… (p. 12)
(Where is the world heading for?
Where are we going?
Where is the world heading for?
Listen to me
Where are we heading for?...
This suffering is much
It is so difficult…)
The subject matter of the poem is a revelation of the poet’s state of mind towards the
hardship being expressed by the masses. In “Ìjankúkujàn” (folktale song), a similar field of
discourse is observed:
Ló bá dìjankúkujàn
Ìjankúkujàn
Mo ló dìjankúkujàn
Ìjankúkujàn
103
Kí ló janmọló̩ ya mó̩ lè̩ níjànkujàn
Ìjankúkujàn
Tápá fi di kánndá
Ìjankúkujàn
Tésè fi di ko̩ ndo̩
Ìjankúkujàn
Té̩ yìn fi di gulutu
Ìjankúkujàn… (p. 59)
(It has turned absurd
Ìjankúkujàn
I say, it has turned absurd
Ìjankúkujàn
What was it that defeated the child of ‘o̩ ló̩ ya’
Ìjankúkujàn
That made his arm broken
Ìjankúkujàn
That made his leg dislocated
Ìjankúkujàn
That made his back bent
Ìjankúkujàn… )
The extract above refers to how the socio-economic system of the country had collapsed, and
its citizenry helpless. In the same vein, “Ẹ fahán Pere Mèkúnnù” (Speak good of the poor)
creates a similar semantic domain of suffering being experienced by the poor masses. The two
groups of participants in the poem are the poor masses and the insensitive leaders.
Apart from political issues that are generally discussed in Àjànàkú’s collections, there
are other social vices which the poet laments. Such thematic preoccupations are bribery and
corruption, which have continued to threaten the continuous existence of Nigeria. The
‘cankerworm’, called corruption, has eaten deep into the fabric of all aspects of the society.
Àjànàkù espouses this idea in “Àdáàkó Àjo̩ ” (non-refundable contribution). The degree of
corruption among the Nigerian law enforcement agents that are entrusted with the
responsibilities of protecting the lives and properties of the citizens, is emphasized. These
104
agents have turned themselves into road side ‘tax collectors’ extorting money from the
motorists. Àjànàkú puts it in this way:
Awakò̩ lójú pópó
Ẹ kú àmúmó̩ ra
Ẹ kúu sùúrù
Nítorí àjọ àdáàkó
Té̩ è̩ n dá fáláṣọ ò̩ fò̩ nírònà:
Àjọ tipátipá
Àjọ àfè̩ lè̩ gbà
Bí ò tilè̩ tóndá ló̩ rùn (p. 41)
(Motorists
What perseverance
What patience
For the non-refundable contribution
That you always pay to the men
in mourning uniform along the roads:
A forceful contribution
That the contributors are not pleased with).
This extract captures the atrocities committed by the law enforcement agents, especially the
police, on the Nigerian roads. The poet thus equates them with armed robbers on the highways
Àtàwọn, àtìgárá
Tó n fòru dúdú bojú dánà, ẹgbara (p. 41)
(They, and the armed robbers
Who rob in the night, are same)
According to the poet, the police are not alone in the practice. Other law enforcement agents
such as mobile police, soldiers, and the road safety officers are inclusive. He says:
Naira márùn-ún kò tó mùko̩
Mé̩ wàá ni taláṣọ dúdú lásán
Múrí ni tapani-má-rosè̩ …
Bó o bá róníkakí láàrin wọn
105
Mò̩ pé Wàsóbìa lo ó fi jura.
Májámájá pàá ò kèrè
Irúkìírú ni gbogbo wọn…(p. 42)
(Five naira is worthless
It is ten naira for the police
Twenty naira for the mobile police
If you sight soldiers among them
Be sure that you will part with fifty naira
Road safety officers also are not left behind
They are all same )
The subject matter of the poem is a strong condemnation of the gross indiscipline and
corruption among the officers.
Tenor of Discourse
The social relations in “Níbo Là N Rè?” is confrontational and directed at corrupt
leaders who have squandered the resources that are meant for the well-being of the generality
of the people. The poet writes that:
Ẹ yígbà padà
Ọmàṣùwà Onílè̩ ẹ̩wàrà
Káyé lè dorí kobi ire
Ká wáá máa gòkè… (p. 15)
(Turn a new leaf
You leaders of this country
So that we can have a right direction
And be progressive… )
Similarly, the social relations highlighted in “Ẹ fahán Pere Mè̩ kúnnù” is an indication of
mutual hatred between the two classes. This is why the poet warns that if these leaders fail to
think of better life for the masses, the consequence may be grave. Considering the field of
discourse espoused in “Àdáàkó Àjo”, the corresponding tenor of discourse is predictable. This
106
poem castigates the corrupt law enforcement agents who have become thorns in the flesh of the
motorists on the highways. The kind of interpersonal relationship that an extract like this would
generate, especially between the subjects (Police and their accomplices) and the readers
(public), would be influenced by such images as ‘alás̩ o̩ dúdú’ (policemen), ‘apani-má-rosè̩ ’
(mobile police), ‘oníkakí’ (soldiers), and ‘májámájá’ (road safety officers). The participants’
social relations in these lines is an indication of mutual hatred between the corrupt law
enforcement officers and the public.
Mode of Discourse
Owing to the fact that “Níbo Là N Rè” is directed towards bad leadership, the rhetorical
mode is inciting (?). At a point, the poet charges the oppressed to hold their destinies in their
hands and fight for their rights. The idea is presented thus:
Nítorí ìgbà ò lọ̩ bí òréré;
Ìyà yìí kò lè tó̩ lọ̩ bí ò̩ pá ìbọn
Àmó̩ ṣ̩á o, Iṣé̩ Alátiṣ̩e ni
Kálátiṣ̩e ó fo̩ wó̩ ara rè̩
Tún gèlè orí ara rè̩ wé o
Kó fẹ̩̩nu ara rè̩ ko iwọ̩… (p. 14)
(No condition is permanent
This suffering cannot last for ever
However, it is one’s own determination
One should determine
To hold one’s destiny
And resist oppression… )
The poet is not well disposed to bad leadership and its attendant hardship, hence his call for
change. He charges the masses thus “Kálátiṣ̩e ó fọ̩wó̩ ara rè̩ tún gèlè orí ara rè̩ wé o,” meaning
that the masses should not keep quiet or mute; rather, they should stand up and challenge the
oppressors of the land. The rhetorical mode in “Ìjankúkujàn” is satirical – condemning the
insensitivity on the part of the leaders which characterizes the poor state of the country. For
instance, a picture of a forty year old person, who is still a toddler, is drawn to depict Nigeria at
forty which still remained undeveloped in the following:
107
Ọmọ ogójì ọdún
Ìjankúkujàn
Tí kò lé dá mùkọ̩
Ìjankúkujàn
Tí kò lé dá gbé̩ sè̩
Ìjankúkujàn
Tó wá ya àràrá kalè̩
Ìjankúkujàn… (p. 60)
(A forty year old ‘child’
Ìjankúkujàn
Who cannot feed himself
Ìjankúkujàn
Who cannot walk
Ìjankúkujàn
Has eventually become a dwarf
Ìjankúkujàn… )
This is intended to paint a picture of a failed state which after forty years of independence
could not sustain itself. The zig-zag graphological structure of the poem is indicative of the
situation of the country.
The mode of discourse i.e., rhetorical mode in “Ẹ fahán Pere Mè̩ kúnnù” is incantatory.
At certain points, invocative and incantatory apparatus are used as radical ways of achieving
the ultimate goal of having a better life for the masses as captured in the following extract.
Àmó̩ bó ṣe tàwọ̩n ò̩ jè̩ lú
Àwọn afigègé ré̩ bááṣ̩í lára mè̩ kúnnù:
Kílé wọn ó gbóná girigiri
Ké̩ è̩ dè̩ wo̩ n ó pò pò̩ gùdùgùdù.
Bó ṣ̩e tàwọn agbóríìgbé̩ -dìgárá ilè̩ yìí
Tí wó̩ n n fèké ṣ̩è̩ tó̩
Tí wó̩ n n fÀlàbá wòDòwú:
Èrè lobìnrin n jẹ̩ lábò̩ ọ̩jà
Èrè tó tó ìló̩ po mé̩ wàá
Bááṣ̩í ẹ̩ran Àlàbá té̩ e̩ ré̩ kéDòwú;
108
Lonílé oríta ó ṣ̩u sé̩ è̩ dè̩ tè̩ yin…(p. 24)
(In respect to the looters
Those siphoning the money meant for the masses:
May their homes be terribly hot
May calamities visit them and their families.
The bad leaders of this country
Who are governing with lies
Who are cheating on others
Profits abound for women on return from market
Profits in ten folds
The portion of Àlàbá’s meat you gave to Ìdòwú
Will ‘èṣù’ (Yorùbá god of justice) repay you
and your household)
The poet employs the euphemism “ò̩ jè̩ lú” (treasury looters) to replace “òṣ̩èlú” (politicians) as
they are commonly called. This device is deliberately used to bring the corrupt politicians to a
state of disrepute. He invokes the spirit of “onílé oríta” (èṣù, Yorùbá god of justice) to deal
with the treasury looters and their household. Furthermore, the mode of discourse in “Àdáàkó
Àjo̩ ” is both accusative and confrontational. Since the trust of the common citizens in the law
enforcement agent that is supposed to defend and protect them has been dashed, the poet is
poised with leaving no stone unturned in expressing his view in the following lines:
Ìdigunjalè kan ò jùyí
Gbogbo yin ló ye̩ kò fè̩ yìn tàgbá.
Àtò̩ gá tó wà nínú o̩ yé̩
Àto̩ mo̩ o̩ s̩ é̩ tí n be̩ nínú òòrùn
Alágbèédá ni gbogbo yin porogodo;
Gbogbo yín ló tó̩ kó s̩ è̩ wà.
Àmó̩ , níbo lagbófinró ò̩ hún tún kù sí?
Ta ló tún lè múrúu wo̩ n jófin? (p.42)
(There is no armed robbery that is greater than this
You are all supposed to face the firing squad
109
Both superior officers seated in the airconditioned offices
And the subordinate ones standing in the sun
You are all thieves
You are all supposed to be imprisoned.
But, where can the so-called law enforcement
agent be found?
Who can bring such offenders to justice?)
The rhetorical questions raised in the last two lines portend hopelessness about the present crop
of Nigerian law enforcement agents. The poet is desirous of having a society where the people
would handle the issue of their security themselves and not rely on the law enforcement agents.
He presents this in the following as:
Àwa ló yẹ̩ ká ṣ̩ara gírí
Ká jára gbà
Ló̩ wó̩ jẹ̩gúdú-jẹ̩rá…
Agbófinró kan kò sí
Tó ju ará ìlú lọ̩…
Onínú funfun ló lè gbófin ró o jàre,
Kìí ṣ̩e dánàdánà (p. 42)
(We have to brace up
And liberate ourselves
From the corrupt agents…
There is no law enforcement agent
That is greater than the people themselves…
It is a plain-hearted person that can enforce laws
Not armed robbers).
Context of Culture
The context of culture deployed in the poem “Ìjankúkujàn” (folktale song) is located in
one of the Yorùbá folktales which has a musical refrain, “àlùjannjánkújan”. The folktale is
centred on ajá (dog) and other animals. There was a severe famine in the land which made all
110
animals to agree that they kill their parents, one after the other for food. After this arrangement,
dog, being a clever animal, took his mother to heaven while he joined other animals to eat their
parents. In no time, they exhausted the available parents for food, yet the famine persisted.
However, prior to this time, dog was visiting his mother in heaven via a long rope which
descended from heaven. He usually ate to satisfaction before he returned home. While other
animals were becoming thin, dog was growing fat. One day, tortoise visited the dog and
pleaded with him to tell him the secret of his well-being. After much persuasion, dog took the
tortoise to his mother in heaven and they both were fed well. Meanwhile, each time dog wanted
to see his mother, he used to sing a song which would alert his mother. The song goes thus:
Ìyá, ìyá takùn wálè̩ o
Àlùjannjankíjan
Gbogbo ayé pa yèyé rè̩ jẹ̩
Àlùjannjankíjan
Ajá gbé tirè̩ ó dò̩ run
Àlùjannjankíjan…
(Mother, mother let down the rope
Àlùjannjankíjan
Everybody killed his mother
Àlùjannjankíjan
Dog carried his to heaven
Àlùjannjankíjan…
On hearing this song, his mother would let down the rope and he would climb the rope
to reach his mother. The same procedure was followed as he invited tortoise to join him.
Tortoise, in his usual characteristic manner, told other animals how he and dog had been
feeding. He later took the animals to the place and started singing as dog usually did. When
dog’s mother heard the song, she let down the rope thinking that it was her son, dog. As they
were climbing the rope and singing, the mother realized that it was not her son, therefore, she
cut the rope, tortoise and his cohorts fell down. Some of them died instantly. Although the
tortoise escaped death, the shell on his back cracked. That was the incident that made tortoise’s
shell looks cracked till today. It is this folktale narrative that the poet transforms to a poem.
The cultural import of this folktale in which the dog loved and cared for his mother,
negates the feelings of the crop of Nigerian leaders, who, through their actions have turned the
111
country to a pitiable condition despite the huge natural and human resources the country is
endowed with. The poet is of the opinion that one of the problems of this crop of leadership is
non-commitment to the principles of loyalty and love displayed by the past heroes to fight for
the independence of the country. They ignored words of reasoning and embarked on their
personal agenda. The result of such an attitude is the killing, jailing and going on self-exile of
some prominent Nigerians during the military rule.
3.2 Socio-political discourse in Olúnládé’s Ewì Ìgbàlódé (Modern Poems)
Táíwò Olúnládé is a contemporary Yorùbá poet whose selected poems reflect on the
social and political happenings in the society. Forty poems are contained in Ewì Ìgbàlódé and
four were randomly selected for analysis. The four poems selected from Ewì Ìgbàlódé are
“Abájọ̩” (No wonder), “Odù Ìró̩ wó̩ pó̩ nlá” (Game of corruption), “Awo” (Cult of unity) and
“Múra síṣé̩ ” (Be diligent).
Field of Discourse
In “Abájo̩ ” (No wonder), the subject-matter, i.e., the field of discourse, centres on the
Nigerians’ experience during the military regime. The poet is of the view that no military
government can give its citizens the desired benefits, since it is not accountable to the people.
He accuses the military rulers of high-handedness and insensitivity. The idea is developed in
the following:
Ṣ̩àngó la ní ní Balógun
Abájo̩ tá ò fi lè faraya
Olúkòso la ní lé̩ gbò̩ n-ó̩ n
Abájo̩ tá ò fi lè pèròpò̩ … (p. 60)
(‘S̩ àngó’ is our warlord
No wonder we cannot react
‘Olúkòso’ is our brother
No wonder we cannot reason together…)
The extract attests to the fact that people were incapacitated by authoritarian rule of the
military, and that they could neither talk nor protest against inhuman treatment meted out to
112
them. The semantic domain in “Odù Ìró̩ wó̩ pó̩ nlá” (Game of corruption) reflects on the issue
of corruption. The poet describes corruption as the bane of Nigeria’s development. Corruption,
has become a cankerworm that has eaten deep into the fabric of every system and individual.
This, according to the poet has hindered the progress of the country. Olúnládé espouses the
idea of the circumstance in which and for which this poem is composed in the following lines:
Gbogbo ohun tá a mò̩ láyé ijó̩ sí
Ni wó̩ n ti yí bìrì mó̩ wa ló̩ wó̩
Wó̩ n láyé ohun tó tó̩ kó̩ la wà
Wó̩ n láyé o̩ wó̩ pípó̩ nlá ló nìgbà
Wó̩ n lóun a bá fé̩ jẹ̩ làgbà oun a fé̩ ṣ̩̩e… (p. 40)
(All we knew in the past
Have turned awkward
They said this is not the age of righteousness
They said this is the age of corruption
They said what we stand to gain supersedes what
we intend to do).
To the poet, both the leaders and the followers, i.e., the participants, are guilty of this
allegation. The poet is of the opinion that in the past, people discharged their duties with a
sense of commitment and dedication, without requesting gratification. Today, at every level of
the Nigerian system, people request gratification before giving what one duly deserves. This is
the primary source of corruption. The poet identifies some features of corruption, namely, title
giving to undeserving people, giving positions on ethnic basis and document manipulation.
Babaláwo wo ló kifá fún wo̩ n níjó̩ sí?
Afipòdániló̩ lá awo ìlú
Afàyèàtàtà jàbúrò awo Ìran
Agbáratáàfís̩ olórí awo E̩ lé̩ yàmè̩ yà
Gbogbo wo̩ n ni wó̩ n jo̩ n s̩ awo pò̩ …
Wó̩ n ní kí làwó̩ n lè s̩ e táwo̩ n fi lè tètè rí s̩ e
Wó̩ n ní kí wo̩ n ó rúbo̩ ìfo̩ gbó̩ ne̩ ko̩ ro̩ wápò
Wó̩ n ní kí wo̩ n ó mète ìwé yíyí… (p. 42)
(Who was the ‘babaláwo’ that divined for them?
113
One-who-bestowed-position on others, the cult of the land
One-who-bestowed-juicy-potfolio on younger ones, the cult
of ethnicity
They all belonged to same cult group…
They inquired what they could do so that they could
quickly enrich themselves
They were asked to prepare a sacrifice so that they
would be favoured with exalted positions
They were asked to employ the tricks of manipulation…)
The extract above attests to the claim that ethnicity, in Nigeria, promotes corruption in
public service as regards the issues of appointment and promotion, favouritism, nepotism,
award of contracts, manipulation of constitution, racial / ethnic discrimination and the likes.
However, in “Awo” (Cult of unity), the field of discourse, i.e., theme is erected on unity
as a panacea for national development in Nigeria. The poet emphasizes the need for the people
of Nigeria to be united in order to lift the country to a greater height. He carefully selects some
creatures which by their natural endowment have a feature of moving as a team. Examples of
these creatures are “ikán” (termites), “èèrà” (ants), “è̩ gà” (palm-birds) and “tata”
(grasshoppers). These creatures, as used by the poet, symbolize the unity which he wants
Nigerians to emulate.
In “Múra sís̩ é̩ ” (Be diligent), the subject matter is the dignity in labour. The poet
condemns the act of indolence in its entirety. He posits that achievement in whatever respect, is
not attained without hard work. This view corroborates a biblical verse which says “The soul of
the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat”
(Proverbs, 13:4). The idea is summed up in the following:
Iṣ̩é̩ takuntakun níí mú
Kénìyàn ó le ké̩ sẹ̩járí
Iṣ̩é̩ níi múni gbó̩ n
Àìṣ̩iṣ̩é̩ níí múni gò̩ ju taṣ̩utaṣ̩u lọ̩
Ẹ̩ní bá ṣ̩iṣ̩é̩ á lówó ló̩ wó̩ … (p. 2)
(It is hard work
That makes one to be successful
It is work that makes one wise
114
Indolence makes one to be stupid
One who works will be financially independent…)
Tenor of Discourse
In relation to the tenor of discourse, i.e., social relations in “Abájo̩ ” (No wonder), the
participants are the military leaders and the people of Nigeria. The relationship between these
two groups can be said to be unfriendly due to the high-handedness of the military. People’s
opinion did not matter since they assumed power through the gun. It can also be said that the
poet aligns himself with the feelings of the oppressed, by identifying with them when he uses
the collective pronoun ‘a’ (we) in “tá ò lè faraya” (that we cannot react) as is evident in the
following:
S̩ àngó la ní ní Balógun
Abájo̩ tá ò fi lè faraya (p. 60)
(‘S̩ àngó’ is our warlord
No wonder we cannot react)
The theme in “Múra sís̩ é̩ ” (Be diligent) exhibits the role-relation that exists between elderly
people and young ones. The tenor of discourse in the poem (Múra sís̩ é̩ ) is a way of
foregrounding the way and manner the Yorùbá advise the young ones or somebody perceived
to be lazy by saying ‘is̩ é̩ lòògùn ìs̩ é̩ ’ (work is an antidote to poverty).
Mode of Discourse
The symbolic organization of “Abájo̩ ” (No wonder) is the use of parallelism made up of very
short lines. Also, the symbols which permeate every interval of the poem have been used to
convey the ‘emotional feeling’ of the poet to the audience. The symbols are “S̩ àngó” (god of
thunder), “Olúkòso” (another name for Ṣ̩àngó), “Ọya” (Ṣàngo’s wife), “Olúẹri” (Ṣàngó’s inlaw), “ejò” (snake), “adití” (a deaf), “kò̩ lò̩ kò̩ lò̩ ” (fox), “è̩ gún” (thorn), “yèrèpè” (nettle) and
“è̩ gbè̩ jí” (a herbalist). All these symbolise the military leaders and their hard posture to the
issue of governance. The poet deliberately selects “S̩ àngó” among other Yorùbá deities to
represent the high-handedness of the military rulers. “S̩ àngó”, the god of thunder and lightning,
is the most powerful god of the Yorùbá and a warrior. It is well known that “S̩ àngó” is subject
115
to frequent outbursts of ungovernable temper, during which he hurls down stones at those who
have given him cause for offence. He was king of old Ò̩ yó̩ in Yorùbá land, and became so
unbearable through rapacity, cruelty and tyranny. He also had certain mystical abilities to
command and control great storms of varying sizes. This device has proven to be a most
effective medium of making a goal-ended presentation in Yorùbá poetry. The effect of this
device, therefore, is to attack the oppressors (military) and their government. The rhetorical
mode in the poem is condemnation of military rule.
Moreover, the channel of delivery of “Odù Ìró̩ wó̩ pó̩ nlá” (Game of corruption),
is imbued with ‘e̩ se̩ ifá’ (a genre in Yorùbá oral poetry) – an effectual strategy for influencing
the behaviour of the readers in support of the poetic arguments. This is borne out of the fact
that ‘e̩ se̩ ifá’ is a corpus where words of wisdom in Yorùbá tradition reside. The rhetorical
mode in the poem is advising. This is an attempt to enable all individuals, groups and tribes
that comprise Nigeria to have a rethink and work towards building a virile nation which is
currently at the verge of decay. In “Awo” (Cult of unity), words and expressions which
engender unity are frequently used. Examples like Ikán ṣawo títí, àwọn èèrà ṣawo títí, àwọn
è̩ gà ṣawo títí, àwọn tata ṣawo títí, (termites, ants, palm-birds, grasshoppers, engage in cult of
unity) reinforce our perception of the context. The poet deliberately selects these creatures by
their natural endowment of moving as a team. The unity and sense of oneness that bring these
creatures together to achieve a common goal is what the poet foregrounds. Also, an expression
like àwọn ejò ṣawo títí, awo wọn ò gún (snakes engage in cult of unity, yet they are not
successful) is employed in the poem to depict the consequence of not being united. The
uncooperative attitude of snakes makes them to suffer. The effect this has is to create
awareness on the significance of living in harmony as a united nation.
The mode of discourse, i.e., rhetorical mode in “Múra síṣ̩é̩ ” (Be diligent) is the
condemnation of the habit of laziness and indolence, especially among the youth. The message
is made more enduring with short and direct lines as shown in the concluding lines:
Ìte̩ ramó̩ s̩ é̩ níí mágbè̩ je̩ un kánú
Ìte̩ ramó̩ s̩ é̩ níí so̩ mo̩ è̩ kó̩ s̩ é̩ dò̩ gá
Ìte̩ ramó̩ s̩ é̩ níí fàgbéga lé̩ nu is̩ é̩
Ìte̩ ramó̩ s̩ é̩ níí mú màjèsín dépò àgbà (p. 2).
(Hardwork makes the farmer reap bountifully
Hardwork makes an apprentice a master
Hardwork brings promotion
116
Hardwork propels the young to attain the position of the elderly ).
Such directness in the mode of delivery coupled with the recurrent use of repetition
“ìtẹ̩ramó̩ ṣé̩ ” (hardwork) and parallelism captures the stance of the poet against the perceived
lazy ones.
Context of Culture
The meaning of the symbols ‘S̩ ango’, ‘Olúkòso’ and ‘Ọya’ used in the poem “Abájọ” (No
wonder) could be further explained from the perspective of Yorùbá culture. For example,
‘Ṣàngò’ is a god of thunder in the Yorùbá tradition, and he is very powerful. He is always
appeased so that one does not incur his wrath. Also, ‘Olúkòso’ is an appellation used for this
god while ‘Ọya’ is his wife; hence the saying, “Ṣàngó Olúkòso ọkọ Ọya” (Ṣàngó Olúkòso,
husband of Ọya). Other symbols in the poem such as; ‘ejò’ (snake), ‘adití’ (deaf person),
‘kò̩ lò̩ kò̩ lò̩ ’ (fox), ‘è̩ gún’ (thorn), ‘yèrèpè’ (nettle), and ‘è̩ gbè̩ jí’ (a herbalist) are used to
symbolise the military leaders. ‘Ejò’ (snake) is a dangerous and poisonous creature which
everyone avoids. ‘Adití’ (deaf person) does not easily hear what other people around him are
saying. ‘Kò̩ lò̩ kò̩ lò̩ ’ (fox) is a wild animal fond of eating other creatures like chicken. ‘È̩ gún’
(thorn) is a sharp pointed part on the stem of a plant which inflicts pains if one mistakenly
comes in contact with it. ‘Yerèpè’ (Nettle) is also a wild plant with leaves that stings one’s skin
if one touches it. ‘È̩ gbè̩ jí’ (a herbalist) has magical power that makes people fear him. The
poet, on the one hand, equates the powerful nature of the military with that of Ṣàngó. The
military was ‘worshipped’ like a god. On the other hand, he describes the military as, being
dangerous and poisonous as a snake. The military turned deaf hear to the cry of the masses. Its
men stole and looted the treasury. They were unreliable and wicked.
Conclusion
This study has discussed the political and social themes in the poems of Àtàrí Àjànàkú and
Táíwò Olúnládé, using socio-semiotic tools of field, tenor, and mode of discourse, as well as
the context of culture. The poets’ field of discourse addressed insensitivity of political leaders
to the suffering of the people, horrible experience of Nigerians during the military regime,
bribery and corruption, as well as unity and dignity of labour as panacea for national
development. The tenor of discourse exhibited hatred and unfriendliness between the political
117
leaders and the oppressed. The poet’s role-relation in the poem that emphasized the dignity in
labour is the one that exists between elderly and young ones. The mode of discourse was
confrontation, incantation, satire, and condemnation through the use of metaphor and
parallelism. The context of culture was the use of folktale song and cultural symbols. It is
evident from our analysis that socio-semiotics has proven to be worthwhile in the analysis of
Yorùbá written poetry.
References
Adejumo̩ , A. (2005). “A sociological appraisal of Àtàrí Àjànàkú’s orin ewuro”. In Yorùbá:
Journal of Yorùbá studies association of Nigeria, 3 (1) pp. 34-43.
Adeye̩ mi, O. (2001). Political commitment and poetic utterances in Jíbó̩ lá Abíó̩ dún’s
Àlọ
n lọ…ewì” in ALÓRE: Ilorin journal of the humanities (11), 80-93.
Ajanaku, A. (1998). Orin ewúro. Ibadan: Sam Bookman.
Fo̩ lo̩ runs̩ o̩ , A.O. (1989). Fífewì pàrokò: Àyè̩ wò ewì Ọlábímtán. Nínú Sé̩ mínà kìíní ní
ìrántí
J.S.A. Odujinrin, pp. 194-209. Lagos: Odujinrin Publishing Company.
Folorunso, A.O. (1998). The written Yoruba poetry (1949-1989): A study in the
sociology of
literature. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Ibadan,
Ibadan.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotics: The social interpretation of
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of
language in
a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: OUP.
Harris, H. S. (2006). Socio-semiotic approach in translation: Two models
Revisited. Retrieved from http://usd.ac.id/06/publdosen/phenoma/
feb06/harris.pdf.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Holy Bible (King James Version) (2004). Lagos: Bible Society of Nigeria.
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T.van (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge.
Leckie-Tarry, H. (1995). Language and context: A functional linguistic theory of register.
London: Pinter.
Olujinmi, B. (2005). The image of the woman in written Yorùbá poetry. In Ibafa: A
journal of African studies, 5(2), pp. 101-117. Department of African and Asian
Studies, University of Lagos.
118
Olunlade, T. (2002). Ewì ìgbàlódé. Ibadan: Clemeve Media Konsult.
Randviir, A. (2004). Mapping the world: Towards a sociosemiotic approach to
Culture. Tartu: Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu.
Thibault, P.J. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis: Text, social meaning making, and
Nabokov’s Ada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wales, K. (2001). A dictionary of stylistics (2nd Edition) London: Pearson.
Wikipedia, The free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialsemiotics.